I don't think this a good idea. There are people who genuinely try to cast good votes, and if they're selected for one of these idiotic bad rfd of the week, they'll become discouraged, and not want to vote. It's not nice.

I haven't any problem with TRW's provided that the critiques are tame, i.e., criticizing RFD's instead of the people writing those RFD's. But some people think, perhaps rightly so, that it discourages voting.

At 6/9/2016 7:25:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:I haven't any problem with TRW's provided that the critiques are tame, i.e., criticizing RFD's instead of the people writing those RFD's. But some people think, perhaps rightly so, that it discourages voting.

I mean, why must it be publicized? The mod already sends out a PM to discuss their bad RFD's. I guess as long as the name isn't publicized. But, yet it would be, because you have to show what debate the RFD was casted on.

At 6/9/2016 7:25:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:I haven't any problem with TRW's provided that the critiques are tame, i.e., criticizing RFD's instead of the people writing those RFD's. But some people think, perhaps rightly so, that it discourages voting.

I mean, why must it be publicized? The mod already sends out a PM to discuss their bad RFD's. I guess as long as the name isn't publicized. But, yet it would be, because you have to show what debate the RFD was casted on.

Because the point of TRW's is to provide a substantive critique of the contents of those RFD's, not only for the benefit of the person writing them, but for any potential voter. In a sense, it's also a deterrent: I don't want people to feel shame, surely, but it is an incentive to put time and effort into RFD's, which debates who put time and effort into their arguments deserve.

Bluesteel did an excellent job with his TRW's, and I don't think anyone felt particularly shamed as a result. So did YYW and whiteflame. But they know better than I whether reinstating this is a good idea, and last I checked YYW is completely opposed, whiteflame has other things on his plate, and Bluesteel is busy having a life. So this won't happen, anyway.

At 6/9/2016 7:25:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:I haven't any problem with TRW's provided that the critiques are tame, i.e., criticizing RFD's instead of the people writing those RFD's. But some people think, perhaps rightly so, that it discourages voting.

I mean, why must it be publicized? The mod already sends out a PM to discuss their bad RFD's. I guess as long as the name isn't publicized. But, yet it would be, because you have to show what debate the RFD was casted on.

Another point: the goal of vote moderation, as I believe whiteflame said just the other day (unless I'm confusing him with someone else, in which case I apologize), is "minimum sufficiency." They're not looking for the best votes -- i.e., you don't have to consistently cast bladerunner-caliber ballots for your RFD's to be counted -- but votes that are just barely sufficient (which makes sense, btw). TRW's don't cover votes that were removed: by definition, the remaining votes must have been deemed "minimally sufficient" unless a few fell by the wayside. The degree of quality sought by TRW is in a whole other league to what moderation's standard.

I personally think it would be more beneficial to highlight a good rfd than a bad one. In my experience it is easier to say... do it this way, here is a good example.. then to say... see here is a bad example.

RFD's are a product of a delusional mind that thinks the real world cares about why people vote on things. Only in a sheltered and highly fascist environment can an RFD exist.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

I personally think it would be more beneficial to highlight a good rfd than a bad one. In my experience it is easier to say... do it this way, here is a good example.. then to say... see here is a bad example.

Because the strict voting moderation standards are enough of a stick that you're beating voters with that it's really gratuitous to then want to also video tape it and put it on youtube so we can all laugh at them, too?

I personally think it would be more beneficial to highlight a good rfd than a bad one. In my experience it is easier to say... do it this way, here is a good example.. then to say... see here is a bad example.